arma virumque cano (et alia)
Thanks, Obama.orlin sellers
Here we have another outside news agency--RT means Russia Today--commenting on American policy and culture. That's fine, but let's consider the possibility of motive. Could it be that Russia would like to see a less interventionist America? Could it be that a smaller American military would give a freer hand to Russian foreign policy?
Greg, personally, I trust RT to give me a more balanced perspective than any blow-dried kings and queens of the US media who are merely surrogates of the WH press release department.Here's a piece from Pravda "Americans Never Give Up Your Guns"http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/I would also say that a non-interventionist policy is what the country was founded upon, not entangling alliances, but peace prosperity, and trade."Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jeffersonorlin sellers
Orlin,I wouldn't say that RT is any more balanced than Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. It just has a different slant--generally pro-Russian more than Anti-US--which results in them treating the two parties with the same amount of skepticism unlike the pro-left or pro-right slants of MSNBC and Fox.
Mr. T, I, like RT, treat both parties as one in the same. Both are war-mongering, immoral, corporatist, welfare/warfare, big government, control and power freaks beholding to special interests that are not in the interest of upholding the Constitution, the general welfare, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of the American citizens.In my not so humble opinion, wasting any time watching or listening to MSNBC, FOX, CBS, NYT, or any media in bed with the US government is a total and complete waste of time. You may as well be sitting in a government indoctrination center (government school) being indoctrinated and inculcated with slop.orlin sellers orlin sellers
At the government school where I teach, my students get regular lectures about freedom and personal responsibility. It's not all hopeless.
You Americans should listen to the media of your masters. If the United States Government seeks to engage in an unpopular conflict, the privately held media sources ought to be nationalized in order to present a more balanced view, free of disruptive "debate". One can only imagine the progress that would have been made regarding arms control if such was the case.
Orlin,I agree with your evaluation of both major parties in the US. The main difference between the parties is that they serve slightly different, but mostly overlapping, subsets of the corporations. I also agree that the big media is in bed with the parties/government. They tend to favor one party or the other, but this is just the power struggles of different camps within the In crowd.I just have an impression, from the few times I've had the opportunity to watch RT, that they seem to be similarly in bed with the Russian government. I don't, and I didn't, mean to insult RT; I just view every news source as having an agenda that has to be watched for.
An educated person, who seeks to inform themselves free of the politically-motivated bias that is inherent in western media would watch Xinhua and read The People's Daily.
E.N., we have no masters. You're an example of this, since you come here and make comments, exercising your fundamental human right of free expression. But instead of talking, why don't you actually do something? If you're all that powerful...